CCP 06022025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 1 Again, however, it is not clear from the language of the Code of Ethicswhether the use of the term “family relationship” was intended to be more expansive than “immediate family.” Therefore, the analysis herein is made without drawing a conclusion regarding whether Council Member Strahan’s has a “family relationship” with her sister-in-law. The Roseville Code of Ethics requires application of a “but for” test. First, Council Member Strahan moved to table the action, in part, to resolve a legal question. She did not move to deny, or approve, the proposed vacation. Rather, theonly action taken by the st Council on April 21was to table the matter to get clarification on language in the resolution from the City Attorney, and for further information from staff and the neighborhood. The record is clear that the layover would likely have occurred simply to get clarification from the City Attorney. Therefore, in my opinion, there is not clear and convincing evidence that Council Member Strahan’s action of moving to table the consideration of the vacation, when viewed as either an “action” or “influencing a process”, would not have taken place, but-for her relationship with her sister-in-law. Second, the question of whether to designate or improve the Aldine ROW as a pathway was discussed by City staff, and other council members. The idea of moving to table the matter in order to obtain further information on establishing an improved pathway was first suggested by Mr. Freihammer, who said that the staff was not aware that residents were using the Aldine ROW. There was subsequent discussion by the Council regarding the pathway master plan and other factors to consider regarding installing an improved path. Therefore, in my opinion, there is not clear and convincing evidence that Council Member Strahan’s action of moving to table the consideration of the vacation, when viewed as either an “action” or “influencing a process”, would not have taken place, but-for her relationship with her sister-in-law. Third, Council Member Strahan’s comments include the that the path is a valuable resource for access to the neighborhood between Fairview and Snelling, and the fact that the Aldine ROW has been a footpath for a long time. Further, when explaining why she was moving to table the motion, Council Member Strahan mentioned wanting to better understand the pathway options and to hear from more people in the neighborhood. While Linda Strahan testified in opposition to vacating the Aldine ROW, so did several other residents. Therefore, in my opinion, there is not clear and convincing evidence that Council Member Strahan’s action of moving to table the consideration of the vacation, when viewed as either an “action” or “influencing a process”, would not have taken place, but-for her relationship with her sister-in-law. Conclusion The conclusion of this Report is that, based on the information from the April 21, 2025, public hearing, and for the reasons stated above, there is not clear and convincing evidence in the record that Council Member Strahan’s actions violated the Code of Ethics. The Complaints request that Council Member Strahan recuse herself from voting on the final action related to vacating the Aldine ROW. Since there is not clear and convincing evidence that acting on the Aldine ROW would violate the Code of Ethics, there is not a direct legal or policy requirement requiring her to recuse herself. 8 RS160\\27\\1025838.v5 Qbhf!52!pg!385